Scientific Method —

Weird Science takes antibiotics to ward off a case of idiocy

But keeps radioactive bacteria around to ward off cancer.

An antibiotic that also helps prevent stupidity. Alternatively, one of the most useful side effects of a drug that I've ever heard of. There's an antibiotic called minocycline, which is a close chemical relative of the more commonly prescribed tetracycline. But recently, some researchers discovered it has an intriguing off-label effect: the drug can "improve symptoms of psychiatric disorders and ... facilitate sober decision-making in healthy human subjects." To get a better grip on this effect, some researchers turned to a classic example of human stupidity, the "honey trap." In this case, rather than honey, the trap was baited with an attractive female, because "Males tend to cooperate with physically attractive females without careful evaluation of their trustworthiness."

Given photos from a panel of females who had already decided to exploit their partners, the men were asked to rate the photos' attractiveness and to decide whether they'd trust the woman as a partner. As expected, the decision to trust a woman became more common as the attractiveness rating went up. But the effect completely vanished if the men were given minocycline first.

Killing cancer with a radioactive bacterial infection. There's an unexpected bit of logic behind the approach in this study. The immune system normally helps keep cancer in check, and many tumors only survive because they evolve the ability to tone down an immune response. So, the people behind this study reasoned a tumor and the cells around it should be susceptible to infection by a weakened bacterial strain that the body usually clears with ease.

The problem is that the bacteria were so weak, they didn't actually kill the tumor cells. To solve this, the authors just loaded the bacteria up with a radioactive isotope. That did the trick. When the bacteria invaded the tumor, they brought a radioactive payload with them, one that killed off the tumor cells (and, in all probability, the bacteria themselves).

Teen pregnancy, a health risk that comes from having obese peers. The authors of this one lay out a potentially confusing situation right in the first sentence: "In the United States, adolescent obesity reduces young women's odds of forming romantic and sexual partnerships but increases the likelihood of risky sexual behavior when partnerships occur." So, which ends up predominating? On average, it turns out that obesity lowers a girl's risk of getting pregnant. But the greater the rate of obesity at the girl's school, then the higher the risk becomes. So, if the US obesity epidemic continues unabated, it's possible that one side effect could be an increase in teen pregnancy.

The evolution of laughter: tickling came first. This is something we here on the Weird Science beat were not previously aware of: other primates tickle each other and respond with laughter, suggesting that the behavior has deep roots as a form of social bonding. (Even though tickling came first, it's more complex from an auditory perspective.) The more complicated forms of laughter, like reacting to a good joke or taunting someone, were presumably modifications of this original expression. People have now been put in an MRI tube and their brain activity tracked while they're listening to laughter. The results show that there's a common neural circuit engaged for all laughter, but the two different types then feed into distinct areas of the brain.

Perhaps running for the bathroom can be hazardous to your health. The loss of strength in bones, including osteoporosis, is a significant health problem for older women. Some researchers figured that a commonly used treatment might make matters worse: laxatives. Since these keep things moving through the digestive tract rapidly, they might give their users less of a chance to absorb dietary calcium. And, looking at the data from the Women's Health Initiative, things looked promising at first: women who used laxatives had a significantly higher number of falls. But it turns out they didn't break bones any more often than the non-users. So it's a nice idea, but now they might want to try to figure out why these women fell more often.

Wow.... "Males tend to cooperate with physically attractive females without careful evaluation of their trustworthiness."

Us poor poor sad, stupid males. lol. So much desperate hope.

And it's all true.... even when you know better due to factors like your own position in the meat-market, the sometimes manipulative and cruel nature of many "beautiful" women (especially towards males of your "status" in the "meat-market"), and the probabilities involved (they don't favour you, trust me!).

But this antibiotic... now THAT sounds like gold. Make it free, better yet, make it compulsory!

Sad that we live in such a sexualized and aesthetiscized culture w.r.t social success and perceptions of human worth (both self and others), infecting even the lives of kids, that even in high school, the competing forces of "low value" in the "meat-market" and sexual desperation (a compensatory mechanism to the former?) set up a scientifically interesting paradox.

I guess when you have lot of buddies in the same basket, a self reinforcing effect occurs?

All you people calling for an increased use in minocycline, just remember this: overuse in the population is simply going to result in antibiotic-resistant stupidity (colloquially known as superstupidity).

"Males tend to cooperate with physically attractive females without careful evaluation of their trustworthiness."

This isn't necessarily a "stupid" decision. The males choosing the attractive females may not be choosing them so that they can co-operate with them... at least not the platonic types of "co-operation". How do the authors test for the possibility that minocycline may just be affecting sexual libido.... like an anti-viagra?

"Males tend to cooperate with physically attractive females without careful evaluation of their trustworthiness."

This isn't necessarily a "stupid" decision. The males choosing the attractive females may not be choosing them so that they can co-operate with them... at least not the platonic types of "co-operation". How do the authors test for the possibility that minocycline may just be affecting sexual libido.... like an anti-viagra?

Or maybe it just turns straight males gay

Reduces libido.... yes that might be how it acts. But remember, the males were not asked whether they would want to "cooperate" with the female (which might have a conscious ulterior motive that platonic cooperation might lead to something else), but they were asked if they TRUSTED that female.

Whether the mechanism is straight up libido or aesthetics-based judgement of character or some combo, the fact is, in their conscious minds, they were TRUSTING. They weren't sniggering in their heads and trying to get some "productive interaction" with an attractive female.

They were genuinely stupid and gullible.

But yes, if the mechanism is closely tied with libido, then an anti-aphrodisiac would reduce their gullibility.

I'd guess that obesity is just an indication of socioeconomic class, and that lower classes have more accidental teen pregnancies. I think the last one is commonly accepted.

That girls in poor schools have higher risks of teen pregnancy isn't exactly a shocker.

Obesity is correlated with low income? I wonder what the results would be in they controlled for income and parents' education levels? My interpretation was a bit different.. yours seems... less horrible.

Nice article on this. Apparently... there isn't a simple strong correlation...but there is evidence of SOME relationship. The reality seems very complex. Also....correlation, to the extent it is there....is not causation, necessarily. Interesting idea though.

Besides, the important thing is to find out *how* the minocycline affects behavior. What knobs is it turning up or down, and what is the optimal setting? Can we get the better-decision effect without loading our body up with antibiotics that could cause other side effects and possibly contribute to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria?

As the study noted, the behavior is probably adaptive for men when it comes to mate selection: lavish your attention and spare money and food on the most desired mates, increasing your chance that said mate will choose you for her partner.

The other side of the behavior is not mentioned. Women (and some other female animals) respond positiviely to attention and favors, especially valuable favors like food and money when it comes to mate selection. This behavior is obviously adaptive for females in mate selection but it also appears adaptive to betray the male sometimes to gain a short term advantage. How adaptive is probably circumstantial. Perhaps with men with whom one normally associates, (e.g. fellow residents of a village) it might be less adaptive because the men would eventually learn and discuss among themselves which women were more or less trustworthy.

Another thing of note is that they played a rigged game because (1) there was never any advantage to cooperate for the females and (2) there were no trustworthy females in the game.

It would be very interesting to investigate further in a less rigged game, where the men had a legitimate chance to distinguish between trustworthy and untrustworthy women and the women's choices didn't uniformly favor betrayal. No doubt they would have to interact rather than just view photographs.

Regarding the monocycline, I think the actual side effect is to lower testosterone levels. Many antibiotics mess with hormone levels. Anyone who's been around the block once or twice knows that hormone levels have a definite and uncontrollable effect on people.

Let's face it, guys who aren't interested in or focused on sex tend to be a lot more focused on other things. High testosterone levels start making anyone look "attractive".

So monocycline appears to have the effect of getting men to think with their brains instead of their balls.

I'd be interested in seeing the "honey test" performed on women and see if the results are the same for them. I'm inclined to doubt it will be.

Regarding the monocycline, I think the actual side effect is to lower testosterone levels. Many antibiotics mess with hormone levels. Anyone who's been around the block once or twice knows that hormone levels have a definite and uncontrollable effect on people.

Let's face it, guys who aren't interested in or focused on sex tend to be a lot more focused on other things. High testosterone levels start making anyone look "attractive".

So monocycline appears to have the effect of getting men to think with their brains instead of their balls.

I'd be interested in seeing the "honey test" performed on women and see if the results are the same for them. I'm inclined to doubt it will be.

Don't totally discount it. If it reduces androgen levels, well, androgens also contribute to female libido. It might have a similar but less pronounced effect on females...maybe.

All you people calling for an increased use in minocycline, just remember this: overuse in the population is simply going to result in antibiotic-resistant stupidity (colloquially known as superstupidity).

So that is how idiocracy is to come about?

Well as they say, make something idiot proof and the world will produce a better idiot...

"That did the trick; when the bacteria invaded the tumor, they brought a radioactive payload with them, one that killed off the tumor cells (and, in all probability, the bacteria themselves)."

I'm a bit confused by this, since I thought that infection is caused by bacteria REPRODUCING. But radioactivity doesn't "reproduce", so after just a couple generations the bacteria would no longer be noticeably radioactive. So any killing done by radioactive bacteria would have to be done by the original bacteria injected, not any of their descendants.

From the description, the reason such infections appear to "target" the tumor stems from the fact that bacteria that end up in places other than the tumor get killed by the immune system. But by the same token, killing a bacterium doesn't "kill" it's radioactivity, so I'm still confused how the radioactivity is cleared from the rest of the body. All the other killed radioactive bacteria should be gathered up by the immune system, concentrating their radioactivity and damaging whatever organs that process their remains.

Bottom line: How in the world could the immune system clear the rest of the body of radioactive bacteria, when the immune system can have no possible effect on the total amount of radioactive material?

I don't see anything in the abstract of the honey trap experiment that says whether the test population was of mixed sexual orientation, or predominantly heterosexual, etc. It would be interesting to find out to what degree using a pretty girl as bait works with gay males.

Given photos from a panel of females who had already decided to exploit their partners, the men were asked to rate the photos' attractiveness, and to decide whether they'd trust the woman as a partner. As expected, the decision to trust a woman became more common as the attractiveness rating went up. But the affect completely vanished if the men were given minocycline first.

I have an alternative interpretation (based on experience). Men may not be more likely to trust the more attractive woman, but we may be more likely to declare that we trust the more attractive woman. Thus, the drug makes men behave more honestly (usually to their detriment). The question that arises then is, what medicine do attractive women have to take in order to see through men's false declarations of trust?

the men were asked to rate the photos' attractiveness, and to decide whether they'd trust the woman as a partner. As expected, the decision to trust a woman became more common as the attractiveness rating went up.

This is depending on what the man is going after from the woman:

a) a girlfriend, b) a wife, d) or simply one night stand.

Many men would agreed: A wife with an average look would be an ideal and faithful. But when the man is looking for a girlfriend. The guys would pick out the best looking one the possible. Not to mention when the guys were looking for one night stand. You know what she is going to be:

a) Tall, b) glorious, c) knock out, d) sexy, e) and dumb.

Quote:

But the affect completely vanished if the men were given minocycline first.

I am afraid there's another hidden side effect the researcher didn't know about: The drug has just turned this heterosexual guy into a gay guy.

Quote:

Carewolf wrote:Odd. I would judge the more attractive women more likely to be unfaithfull again. It is the normal trade-off.

It is only true when her partner, boyfriend, or husband is a:

a) Too ugly but rich. - The only reason she stay with him from the start.

b) Handsome but on government welfare. - His looks no longer attractive to her.

c) The man was from another culture, country. - Lack of communication between the two.

d) Is a very lousy performer in bed but rich. - She is hot. Need to say more?

"That did the trick; when the bacteria invaded the tumor, they brought a radioactive payload with them, one that killed off the tumor cells (and, in all probability, the bacteria themselves)."

I'm a bit confused by this, since I thought that infection is caused by bacteria REPRODUCING. But radioactivity doesn't "reproduce", so after just a couple generations the bacteria would no longer be noticeably radioactive. So any killing done by radioactive bacteria would have to be done by the original bacteria injected, not any of their descendants.

From the description, the reason such infections appear to "target" the tumor stems from the fact that bacteria that end up in places other than the tumor get killed by the immune system. But by the same token, killing a bacterium doesn't "kill" it's radioactivity, so I'm still confused how the radioactivity is cleared from the rest of the body. All the other killed radioactive bacteria should be gathered up by the immune system, concentrating their radioactivity and damaging whatever organs that process their remains.

Bottom line: How in the world could the immune system clear the rest of the body of radioactive bacteria, when the immune system can have no possible effect on the total amount of radioactive material?

I'm presuming that they gave these unfortunate mice several doses of Listeria over a period of time and allowed the body to clear most of the (dead) radioactive bacteria from the body. The live bacteria in the cancer weren't cleared by the immune system.

It is more likely that it would end up scheduled under the Controlled Substances Act if further study confirmed any real effect on intelligence. A drug that increases the quality of decision making in the general population by even a small degree would spell disaster for hundreds of politically powerful industries.

Given photos from a panel of females who had already decided to exploit their partners, the men were asked to rate the photos' attractiveness, and to decide whether they'd trust the woman as a partner. As expected, the decision to trust a woman became more common as the attractiveness rating went up. But the affect completely vanished if the men were given minocycline first.

I have an alternative interpretation (based on experience). Men may not be more likely to trust the more attractive woman, but we may be more likely to declare that we trust the more attractive woman. Thus, the drug makes men behave more honestly (usually to their detriment). The question that arises then is, what medicine do attractive women have to take in order to see through men's false declarations of trust?

"Males tend to cooperate with physically attractive females without careful evaluation of their trustworthiness."

This isn't necessarily a "stupid" decision. The males choosing the attractive females may not be choosing them so that they can co-operate with them... at least not the platonic types of "co-operation". How do the authors test for the possibility that minocycline may just be affecting sexual libido.... like an anti-viagra?

Or maybe it just turns straight males gay

You didn't read the study. The men understood that it was all about money.

Given photos from a panel of females who had already decided to exploit their partners, the men were asked to rate the photos' attractiveness, and to decide whether they'd trust the woman as a partner. As expected, the decision to trust a woman became more common as the attractiveness rating went up. But the affect completely vanished if the men were given minocycline first.

I have an alternative interpretation (based on experience). Men may not be more likely to trust the more attractive woman, but we may be more likely to declare that we trust the more attractive woman. Thus, the drug makes men behave more honestly (usually to their detriment). The question that arises then is, what medicine do attractive women have to take in order to see through men's false declarations of trust?

No, they ACTUALLY LOST MONEY based on their decisions.

You're right, my interpretation is not applicable in this case. Thanks for prompting me to read the original study!